There better had be optimisations right across the board, and the last bit is hilarious "The possibility of Crysis 2 to rely heavily on Warhead's sales." That's a guilt trip if ever I heard one "Don't pirate this game or we won't give you a sequel".

Everybody complains about how Crysis was coded when in fact they just don't understand how far ahead Crysis is compared to every other game (in terms of engine design and capability) - basically it's just too far ahead of its time.

Everybody complains about how Crysis was coded when in fact they just don't understand how far ahead Crysis is compared to every other game (in terms of engine design and capability) - basically it's just too far ahead of its time.

Click to expand...

Personally, i don't agree.

To illustrate my point (previous post): how much of a drop does a move from DX9 to DX10 causes in Crysis?

The fact that even a GTX280 with all it's power can't get decent FPS (60+ FPS) with everything on very high speaks volumes, IMO.

To illustrate my point (previous post): how much of a drop does a move from DX9 to DX10 causes in Crysis?

The fact that even a GTX280 with all it's power can't get decent FPS (60+ FPS) with everything on very high speaks volumes, IMO.

Thanks, dude!

Click to expand...

You're just getting caught up in the hype that is NEW TECHNOLOGY! I mean, whenever ati or nvidia comes out with a new card, they act as if it's God's gift to mankind. Crysis really is ahead of it's time and I don't think a single card will be able to play it until next year honestly. I remember when the x850xt came out with ATI, the huge thing was it got above 50fps in css. Pshh.

well honestly how much can they cover in that time span ya know, if we take crysis at face value for the time its not terribly long from when psyco leaves after getting CIA chick to when they're on the boat again

Everybody complains about how Crysis was coded when in fact they just don't understand how far ahead Crysis is compared to every other game (in terms of engine design and capability) - basically it's just too far ahead of its time.

Click to expand...

Meaning they're using technology incorrectly that will suck by the time they get it right?
I think Crysis is just a thing to get you to buy copies of Vista. I also feel it lies about frame rates since it's "surprisingly playable" even at frames you couldn't deal with in world of warcraft. XD

There better had be optimisations right across the board, and the last bit is hilarious "The possibility of Crysis 2 to rely heavily on Warhead's sales." That's a guilt trip if ever I heard one "Don't pirate this game or we won't give you a sequel".

Click to expand...

I know right!:shadedshu Does this mean that this game is some sort of stop gap between the next two "real" installments to the trillogy? Cause this 10hr single campaign crap is a serious jip!
I hope since they are just re-releasing a better optimized version of the 1st game just from another viewpoint that will mean a lower price at the checkout.
Coming out with a version that performs the way the 1st one should've, and making a minor shift in the story-telling doesn't impress me. They're still trying to sell me the same game twice!:shadedshu But time will tell. PLEASE NO ONE PIRATE WARHEAD SO THAT CRYTEK CAN GET PAID & WE CAN ALL CONTINUE WITH ALL THIS CRYSIS GOODNESS!!!!!!......:shadedshu pathetic.

I don't even begin to believe those numbers. They're just trying to work the guilt-trip angle. The game is Platinum for god's sake. Since when is 1,000,000 a bad sales figure for a game?

I still haven't bought or played Crysis, and I won't until I can run it all Very High 1920x1200 or the price drops to $30 or less. They want far too much money for a game that is so poorly optimized.

And lets not fool ourselves. Crysis isn't slow because it's "ahead of it's time". It's slow because it wasn't optimized at all. Look how terribly it scales to higher resolutions. The performance hits you take by changing resolutions are a dead giveaway as to how well a game has been optimized.

Anyway, back on-topic, 10 hours of gameplay is at least better than most FPS's that have been coming out in recent times. Now, they need to release in the $45 range if they want great sales. $60+ is just unacceptable.

I don't even begin to believe those numbers. They're just trying to work the guilt-trip angle. The game is Platinum for god's sake. Since when is 1,000,000 a bad sales figure for a game?

I still haven't bought or played Crysis, and I won't until I can run it all Very High 1920x1200 or the price drops to $30 or less. They want far too much money for a game that is so poorly optimized.

And lets not fool ourselves. Crysis isn't slow because it's "ahead of it's time". It's slow because it wasn't optimized at all. Look how terribly it scales to higher resolutions. The performance hits you take by changing resolutions are a dead giveaway as to how well a game has been optimized.

Anyway, back on-topic, 10 hours of gameplay is at least better than most FPS's that have been coming out in recent times. Now, they need to release in the $45 range if they want great sales. $60+ is just unacceptable.

Click to expand...

I completely agree . . .

as to the notion that Crysis is "advanced" like everyone wants to believe; these two marketing points listed for Warhead:

*Better optimized to run faster than the original game on the same hardware.

*Won't require DX10 for maximum details and full effects.

if true, will completely piss all over the glamorized ideal that Crysis is a game ahead of it's time, and will only cement the fact that the original was poorly optimized, poorly coded and that DX10 support was a marketing-hyped afterthought than a note worthy achievment.

as to the notion that Crysis is "advanced" like everyone wants to believe; these two marketing points listed for Warhead:

*Better optimized to run faster than the original game on the same hardware.

*Won't require DX10 for maximum details and full effects.

if true, will completely piss all over the glamorized ideal that Crysis is a game ahead of it's time, and will only cement the fact that the original was poorly optimized, poorly coded and that DX10 support was a marketing-hyped afterthought than a note worthy achievment.

I don't even begin to believe those numbers. They're just trying to work the guilt-trip angle. The game is Platinum for god's sake. Since when is 1,000,000 a bad sales figure for a game?

I still haven't bought or played Crysis, and I won't until I can run it all Very High 1920x1200 or the price drops to $30 or less. They want far too much money for a game that is so poorly optimized.

And lets not fool ourselves. Crysis isn't slow because it's "ahead of it's time". It's slow because it wasn't optimized at all. Look how terribly it scales to higher resolutions. The performance hits you take by changing resolutions are a dead giveaway as to how well a game has been optimized.

Anyway, back on-topic, 10 hours of gameplay is at least better than most FPS's that have been coming out in recent times. Now, they need to release in the $45 range if they want great sales. $60+ is just unacceptable.

Click to expand...

No true at all. How a game scales to higher resolutions has nothing to do with how optimized it is. It depends on which side of the graphics card is taxing. If the game is texture or geometry heavy, upping the resolution won't stress the card a lot because textures and geometry are the same in all resolutions (for some reason that I don't understand, this is the case with COD4). If the game is taxing on pixel operations upping the resolution will stress the card a lot. Crysis does everything on a per-pixel basis and it does a lot of things that other engines don't do.

1024x768 > 1280x960 > 1600x1200 > 2048x1536 each of these resolutions has 60% more pixels than the precedent one, or looking in the contrary order each resolution has 37.5% less pixels than the bigger one. A totally pixel dependant engine would take that same hit from every jump in the resolution. Now if we look at COD4 it only takes a hit of around 20%, but if you look at Crysis the hit is close to that 37%. It's not optimization is how the engine works.

If you don't like that kind of performance scaling, be prepared for when ray-tracing finally comes to games, you will hate it.

@imperialreign

They will just make the engine do a lot less things and say they did a better optimization, and most of you will believe it is better optimized, because from what I read very few know what it really is to optimize.

Optimize is to make the same program utilize less power, but most people think it is to "fit" the game to the hardware relaxing or removing features. It's not.

Everybody complains about how Crysis was coded when in fact they just don't understand how far ahead Crysis is compared to every other game (in terms of engine design and capability) - basically it's just too far ahead of its time.

They will just make the engine do a lot less things and say they did a better optimization, and most of you will believe it is better optimized, because from what I read very few know what it really is to optimize.

Optimize is to make the same program utilize less power, but most people think it is to "fit" the game to the hardware relaxing or removing features. It's not.

Click to expand...

I've always taken it to mean optimization is relative to how much work the game engine has to perform

I'll definitely give crytek the fact that everything was written from the ground up - and that *it appears* that a lot of "specialty" aspects of the game are handled by the cry engine itself . . . i.e. audio occlusion and mapping, physics . . . instead of relying on a hand full of 3rd party routine calls

but sometimes, in game, it just felt like there was too much workload for the system . . .